Dialed 911 and Nobody Came? How's It At Your Home?
John LONGENECKER
For the apolitical, the newlyweds, all the couples thinking of politics for the first time, welcome. Let's talk about how politics inpacts how you run or are not allowed to run your own home.
Imagine a chronicle or journal of all the news reports from around the country of police not arriving in time...reports of special misconduct, negligence, corruption...How many are there?
Understand that I’m not against law enforcement – not in concept and not personally — I’m for it, and that means I’m for integrity, performance and accountability.
And I expect a lot. And so do a lot of police officers, I’m pleased to say. As a head of a household, what do you expect from law enforcement?
Under integrity and accountability, I’m very strongly in favor of police cooperating with citizens and admitting that they have no mandate to protect individuals. Why the big secret?
[This isn’t something some nut ‘looked up’ in the minutiae of the Constitution, but a legitimate historical concept –- or non-concept -– since 1845 and consistent court rulings: no constitutional right to police protection. Check out Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A Second 1 (DC APP. 1981) as just one example authority on the subject.]
Also under that category I’d like to see the abolition of the siege mentality and code of silence. Would this help your household? This us-against-them mentality within the ranks reflects a poor understanding of the nature of the relationship to the governed.
As I say...Officials are not hired to do their job their way, they’re hired to do their job our way.
Not to challenge officers, but to instruct them to quit challenging citizens. It’s the other way around, and officers, command and officials who believe they are in charge to our exclusion have a tragic misunderstanding of how it all works.
I know some officers who have it right, and it breaks their hearts to see brother and sister officers act in conduct unbecoming which reflects on all of them worldwide.
So…you put a stop to it within. It’s not on our backs to do that.
As your know, Good For The Country is not about Guns, it’s about our sovereignty, in running our homes the way we want unfettered and wherever we go, often involving discussions of armed self-defense when facing grave danger alone. And when your hands are tied so that when you're alone facing grave danger -- you cannot defend yourself -- what do you have?
Now the police find themselves in a similar situation, and the more situations they face as individual men and women identical to what we as citizens have to face, the better. From a lot of discussions that come my way, I’m afraid that the sentiment is that they as individuals should suffer the same consequence we as citizens suffer for violations of those unrealistic, ineffective, unreasonable laws, without their professional immunity, and then their necessary compliance with those laws we do want in our society. This control/immunity perk has no place in law enforcement. It has no place anywhere in government.
Police immunity from specific acts – losing evidence, kicking in the wrong doors, shooting their partner – they all have to go.
Here in Kalifornia –- where the legislature and its tactics (and not the Governor) put the K in Kalifornia –- we have a report of a four-year-old discharging his father’s gun and shooting him in the back. The dad is an LAPD Officer who let his weapon loose in the back seat within reach of his child who ND’s it [Negligent Discharge] while they are on the road together. Various reports add that the Department is going to decide whether to file charges.
Whether to file charges??!? What would happen if you let your piece loose in your car and your child ND’d it and shot you?
There are lots of stories every week where Police screw up, ignore the law, punish citizen who hold them to accountability (by citing the law) leave a weapon out, someone gets it or a lost badge gets into circulation, or weapons are stolen from the station's gun room.
In Philadelphia this week, [see
www.philly.com/mld/philly/15043477.htm ] the city of brotherly love has reportedly been putting up with increased gun violence. [I’d be willing to bet there’s also increased knife violence, rape violence, robbery, mayhem and abductions – what do you think?]
The article reports this quote: "The first question is: What can we do immediately?" Evans [State Rep. Dwight Evans] said.
My answer would be to arm the citizens, Mr. Representative. Immediately. Don’t be stubborn.
The Cops as an agency dialed 911 and nobody came. The Department asked the state police for officers to quell the reported ‘gun violence’. To hell with other violence, I guess, right?
They simply called for backup. Nobody showed.
Like New Orleans. Nobody showed there either, until days went past, then they took guns from the good guys.
What if someone started assembling stories about this sort of thing and turned it into a website compendium: what kind of picture would develop?
You’d see a side of the argument you never knew. As a head of a household, yu'd then be in possessionof information vital to your better household planning.
First, remember that police have no mandate to protect you. Most American households do not know this. It’s time this became common knowledge. In the case of Philly, more officers probably wouldn’t do a whole lot, since police are a reactionary force.
Second, government cannot protect you. Government’s job is more along the lines of national security, and they’re screwing that up, aren’t they? New Orleans again, where Governor Blanco sends in the Guard with orders to shoot to kill as of reports.
Brilliant. Reactionary in some cases, pre-emptively hostile and probably illegal in other cases.
What's the right answer?
The answer is straightforward, (remembering that ytou are the head of a household): The individual is the first line of defense -- not the police. Simple.
This is because the individual is also the supreme authority in America, the ultimate legislature according to writings of the Founding Fathers and other authorities who ought to know.
As some states are coming to act upon this authority as they pass more Stand Your Ground laws on behalf of the law-abiding and innocent givers to society, it seems to work rather well. And why wouldn’t it?
For all the scaremongering and other devices used by the left – blood in the streets, chaos, anarchy, vigilanteism and road rage –- nothing has appeared in decades of prediction. Look to the right-to-carry states for a superb record of self-restraint and good judgment. And reduced crime.
This is humiliating to the scaremongers and officials who like to take guns.
Remember that in taking your guns, officials are removing the force which backs your authority. Then they have all the force. What gives?
Well...what happens when any government has all the force?
And though they may never come for you in a situation where you may wish you had a gun, (like in New Orleans where they came for your guns while releasing criminals ‘for their safety’, remember?) they will predictably leave you disarmed with only external agencies to protect you –- and who do a lousy job of it at that!
This is no accident; it is social engineering against the will of the people to cultivate dependency on agencies.
In right-to-carry states where the scaremongering never was taken seriously, you walk down the street and you don’t know who is carrying a loaded gun in their belt. It doesn’t worry me – it reassures me –- to know that those people are the law-abiding. Don’t forget that law enforcement draws from this pool of persons in the selection process for police officer. All cops –- all cops –- were everyday citizens before the Academy. They either had character or they didn’t make it to the next stage of the selection process. It’s called a background check — not unlike the kind you undergo when applying for a concealed weapon permit.
So what if we created a website compendium of how law enforcement doesn’t arrive in time, good stories of how individuals handled it righteously when alone –- without back-up –- and stories of officers who screw up after Sarah Brady says that only the police should have guns?
Do we have greater faith in our fellow citizens? What do we expect from our officers in terms of personal conduct, responsibility, good judgment; accountability or privilege and immunity?
Oh! There are already two superb resources on these topics. One is Dial 9-1-1 and Die –- The Shocking Truth About The Police Protection Myth, by Attorney Richard Stevens, and the other is a website called Keep And Bear Arms, at
www.KeepAndBearArms.com There are many other sources, but these are the best on the subject you as a head of ahousehold -- an apolitical person -- can use in your safety planning.
KABA is a superb resource that answers the question: if everyday people are the first line of defense as you say, Longenecker, then where are the stories?
They’re out there, but since they’re not good news according to the media, they don’t usually escape the gravitational pull of their local paper. KABA's volunteers scan the horizon for such stories to hand in.
Give it some thought.
It’s your home and it’s your life. It’s your country.
As loyal as they are to their public, Police have no duty to protect you, and government can’t do it anyway, yet the emphasis is on more and more dependency on agencies -- an un-American concept.
Think it over.
It’d be good for the country.
www.sierratimes.com/06/07/18/71_108_139_240_60589.htm
